Vishnu Borewell v. ITO

333 ITR 237High Court2011#1323 most cited

What is Vishnu Borewell v. ITO authority for?

The validity of reopening an assessment or the sufficiency of evidence for reassessment proceedings must be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. This case supports the principle that such actions cannot be based on mere suspicion.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vishnu Borewell v. ITO · 333 ITR 237 · reassessment · reopening assessment · direct evidence · circumstantial evidence · suspicion · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 80IC

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresanction under section 151section 147(b)section 92batrue and full disclosuresanctioning authoritysection 147(a)section 151(1)bogus share capitalmaterial facts necessary for assessmenttransfer pricing orderfirst proviso to section 147

Judgments citing Vishnu Borewell v. ITO

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT CIR 3 बिाम/ M/s. Rich & Royal 2n d Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla complex, v. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AADFR3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by : Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of…

Manglesh Kalyanchand Lalwani, HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1893/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

…ions to demonstrate the inapplicability of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. For the sake of completeness the same are extracted here as under : “In identical context Delhi High Court in case of Central India Electric Supply Company V ITO reported in 333 ITR 237 (Page 31 of legal compilation) held that there was no lack of disclosure by the assessee. That was, of course, apart from the fact that the assessee could hardly disclose as to what would be the compensation, which he might get ultimately if the plea of enhancement was sustained. The fact remained that copy of the report of the board of directors…

Kamlesh Kalyanchand Lalwani, HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1892/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

…ions to demonstrate the inapplicability of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. For the sake of completeness the same are extracted here as under : “In identical context Delhi High Court in case of Central India Electric Supply Company V ITO reported in 333 ITR 237 (Page 31 of legal compilation) held that there was no lack of disclosure by the assessee. That was, of course, apart from the fact that the assessee could hardly disclose as to what would be the compensation, which he might get ultimately if the plea of enhancement was sustained. The fact remained that copy of the report of the board of directors…

Kalyanchand Manakchand Lalwani, HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1891/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

…ions to demonstrate the inapplicability of the provisions of section 147 of the Act. For the sake of completeness the same are extracted here as under : “In identical context Delhi High Court in case of Central India Electric Supply Company V ITO reported in 333 ITR 237 (Page 31 of legal compilation) held that there was no lack of disclosure by the assessee. That was, of course, apart from the fact that the assessee could hardly disclose as to what would be the compensation, which he might get ultimately if the plea of enhancement was sustained. The fact remained that copy of the report of the board of directors…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…idence. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425- 426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), 12 Shri Mithalal D Mutha v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders (P. ) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 310 (All.), vi. CIT vs Dr. Devendra Gupta (2011) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to f…

Sh. Harsh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1263/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…r issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid—whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed-Held, yes [In favour of assessee]”. 5. In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 [Del], the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “Merely affixing a ‘yes’ stamp and signing underneath suggested that the decision was taken by the Board in a mechanical manner as such, the same was not a sufficient compliance under section 151 of the Act.” 6. In the case of Chugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chalia reported in 79 ITR 603 [Supreme Court]…

Sh. Harsh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1262/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…r issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid—whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed-Held, yes [In favour of assessee]”. 5. In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 [Del], the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “Merely affixing a ‘yes’ stamp and signing underneath suggested that the decision was taken by the Board in a mechanical manner as such, the same was not a sufficient compliance under section 151 of the Act.” 6. In the case of Chugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chalia reported in 79 ITR 603 [Supreme Court]…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…idence. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders (P. ) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 310 (All.), vi. CIT vs Dr. Devendra Gupta (2011) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to following judicial decisions…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…idence. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), Shri Kantilal C. Jain iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders (P. ) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 310 (All.), vi. CIT vs Dr. Devendra Gupta (2011) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to follow…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ए’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘A’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT -9(1))(1), M/s Acon Measurement Pvt. Room no.260A, 02nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAACA5078K C.O. 112/Mum/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.4736/Mum/2015) Assessme…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

….C Saldanna & Ors. AIR (1980) SC 326. 6. State ofGujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR (1969) SCN 634. 7. Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State ofGujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 8. Central India Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO & Anr., Reported as (2011) 333 ITR 237 (del) 9. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta & Anr., (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) . 10. CIT v. Shri Tirath Ram Ahuja (HUF), (2008) 306 ITR 173 (DEL) 11. Ltd. v. CIT, Delhi, (1972) 86ITR 501 (DEL) 12. Harish Chandra & Ors. v. CIT, (1985) 154 ITR 478 (DEL) 13. Topandas Kundanmal v. CIT, (1978) 114 ITR 23…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nd support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- 14 Disha N. Lalwani i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders (P. ) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 310 (All.), vi. CIT vs Dr. Devendra Gupta (2011) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to following judicial decisions…

M/S. Maverick Electronics (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 Maveric Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward No.6(3) C/O M/S D Ostwal & Associates, Fca New Delhi 303-304, Dhaka Chambers 2068/38, Naiwala Karolbagh New Delhi 110 005 Pan: Aaach 9596 B

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, C.A. and Sh. Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 151(1)

…plicate entries and repetitions. 5.1. Under such circumstances the reopening is held to be bad in law. For this proposition we rely on the judgement of the Mumbai ‘E’ Bench of the Tribunal in ITA 611/Mum/2004 in the case of Amarlal Bajaj vs. ACIT reported in 333 ITR 237 (Del) vide order dt. 24.7.2013 has considered the legal position and held as follows. “5. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and also the material evidences brought on record from both sides. We have also the benefit of perusing the order sheet entries by which the Ld. CIT has grante…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.S. Bist -DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Vyas Advocate.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 293ASection 80G

…ITO [2004] 268 ITR 332(Bom) 15. NDT Systems v ITO [2014] 363 ITR 603 (Bom) 16. Johri Lal (HUF) v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439 (SC) M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 17. Chhugamal Rajpal v S P Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) 18. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd v ITO [2011] 333 ITR 237 (Del) 19. United Electrical Co (P) Ltd v CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 (Del) 20. German Remedies Ltd v DCIT [2006] 287 ITR 494 (Bom) The Ld. AR of the assessee filed the copy of all the decisions in the form of legal Paper Book. 4. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also peru…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…vidence. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. Epica Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT 251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders (P. ) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 310 (All.), vi. CIT vs Dr. Devendra Gupta (2011) 336 ITR 59 (Raj.), vii. Emirates Shipping Line FZE vs Asst. DIT (2012) 349 ITR 493 (Del.). viii. Reference may also made to following judicial decisions…

M/S. Mehta Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1633/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1633/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Mehta Realtors Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 9/53A, Pocket-A, Kalkaji Extn. Ward 6(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAECM 0667 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. V.P. Gupta, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 22.11.2016 Date of pronouncement : 13.12.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-IX, New De…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1186/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the noting of the Addl.CIT without writing anything. Now the issue is whether such affixing of a mere signature with nothing else can be termed as mechanical action without application of mind. 20. In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del), the Jurisdictional High Court held as follows. “Held, allowing the appeal, (i) that reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. It was a case where literally a…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Observer Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…the noting of the Addl.CIT without writing anything. Now the issue is whether such affixing of a mere signature with nothing else can be termed as mechanical action without application of mind. 20. In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del), the Jurisdictional High Court held as follows. “Held, allowing the appeal, (i) that reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. It was a case where literally a…

Sh. Yogendra Singh, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1305/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: S/Shri Prem Prakash & Mashkoor Ahmed, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…3. This decision, in my opinion, supports the case of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Central 8 ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Del./2014 ITA Nos.1300 to 1305/Del./2014 India Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO – 333 ITR 237. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax – 285 ITR 158 under para 33 of its order held that it is now well settled that a notice issued without obtaining the prior sanction of the authority mentioned in the provisions of section 151 where its proviso to sub-section (1) or the sub-section (2)…

Sh. Yogendra Singh, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1304/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

For Appellant: S/Shri Prem Prakash & Mashkoor Ahmed, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

…3. This decision, in my opinion, supports the case of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Central 8 ITA Nos.1297 & 1298/Del./2014 ITA Nos.1300 to 1305/Del./2014 India Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO – 333 ITR 237. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax – 285 ITR 158 under para 33 of its order held that it is now well settled that a notice issued without obtaining the prior sanction of the authority mentioned in the provisions of section 151 where its proviso to sub-section (1) or the sub-section (2)…